[cageface]

I have to give Siegler credit for actually posting an objective review of an Android device.

No matter which side you favor in the tablet wars I think you have to agree that we're better off as hackers and consumers in a market with real competition. Rather than picking sides we should be happy that Apple and Google are pushing each other to improve their hardware and software at a rate we rarely see in consumer electronics.

[simonh]

I always wonder when I read a comment like this. Is 'objective' a proxy for 'positive'? Is the implication that his negative reviews of previous Android tablets were not objective? Or maybe I'm reading too much into it. Sorry for picking on you particularly but the word Objective is a very loaded one.

[redthrowaway]

Objective, to me, means 'not based upon personal tastes, opinions, and biases'. So this review is completely subjective, as it's based entirely upon what he likes. Regardless, it is nice to see him set the homer hat aside and write an article that wasn't either heaping praise on Apple or scorn on Google.

MG Siegler is as subjective as any reviewer, but that's not what matters. What matters is that you can usually tell what he's going to say before you even read the article, as his views are generally that predictable. He seldom has anything negative to say about Apple, or positive to say about Google.

So the pleasant surprise here comes from seeing him break that trend and say something that couldn't have been written by Apple's PR dept.

[taligent]

Right so your definition of objective is "agrees with what I think".

And if he doesn't then he works for Apple PR.

[entropy_]

Wait, what? The initial post and the GP are from different people. Also, the one you're replying to clearly states: "So this review is completely subjective". How do you go from that to 'your definition of objective is "agrees with what I think"'?

He said it's a pleasant surprise, he did not say that was his definition of objective. He clearly states his definition of objective and that this article does not meet it.

[redthrowaway]

Were you trying to reply to someone else, or did you misread what I wrote?

[cageface]

And if he doesn't then he works for Apple PR.

Siegler's previous pieces very strongly give this impression.

[davidlumley]

Do they though? As a frequent reader of his blog, and related blogs I have always thought they read as someone who values the time Apple spends designing their product, which is why when Google release a product that is similarly well designed he values it too.

[Resident_Geek]

I think the fact that it's a positive review from MG Siegler means it's objective - since he's known to dislike Android devices. A negative review wouldn't necessarily be not objective, but a positive review must be objective.

[madrona]

It certainly does drive pageviews.

[abcd_f]

Keep in mind that all bought reviews are positive.

[notatoad]

I can't speak for the parent but I would definitely say that much of Seigler's previous coverage of android has not been objective. He has long been an unapologetic apple fanboy, looking for negatives about android to pick on and ignoring obvious flaws in apple products.

[lloeki]

> we're better off as hackers and consumers in a market with real competition

On the tablet market, the competition was decimated by the iPad, which was, objectively, overall better than any contender, and by a comfortable margin. Yes Android could potentially do stuff better than iOS, yes hardware could be non-crap, but what was going out of the door was not even in the same league at all. The only one that had real potential at some point was the WebOS based one†.

Until now.

The trouble was that if you had the balls to tell this fact you were irrevocably dismissed as an Apple fanatic.

I long for this tablet to be available outside North America.

†The Kindle Fire is completely under-specced in terms of quality. The Nexus 7 and iPad are both way better.

[drzaiusapelord]

>Until now.

Now was 6+ months ago. You could get a nice fast Tegra3 tablet for a while now at a competitive price. The Nexus is really just an Asus TF201/TF300 shrunk down to 7 inches and with a hefty reduction in price.

>The trouble was that if you had the balls to tell this fact you were irrevocably dismissed as an Apple fanatic.

Or unaware of the last 2 Asus Transformer models (three now as the new one just launched) or even the budget Acer tegra3 tablet. Galaxy tablet isn't bad either, just slow to updates.

I've owned both the TF101 and the TF300 and really feel no need or want for an ipad. The Fire/Nook aren't tablets, they're appliances. If someone wants an android tablet, there are at least 2 or 3 very nice models for sale and 4 or 5 mainstream lower tier cheaper ones.

The Nexus is just a big price cut. Its the same hardware we've been using for some time. That's partly why its so cheap. The Tegra3 chipset is ancient by SoC standards (November 9, 2011.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra#Tegra_3

[cageface]

The trouble was that if you had the balls to tell this fact you were irrevocably dismissed as an Apple fanatic.

Trashing Android tablets hardly qualifies as an act of critical bravery. "There is only an iPad market" has been the mantra of opinion piece on the subject for as long as I've been reading them.

The truth is that we've had non-crap Android tablets for a while now but none good enough to seriously challenge the iPad.

[bitwize]

Until now.

For values of "now" equal to "around this time a year ago".

The EeePad Transformer was the real game-changer in the Android tablet market. Solid hardware, recent versions of Android, great price.

It's worth noting that the Nexus 7 is made by Asus and is effectively a smaller Transformer Prime without the keyboard.

Guess Google didn't want to mess around when choosing hardware partners and went straight for the top quality.

[nicholassmith]

If you mean the Nexus 7, then it is outside NA. You can buy one in the UK for delivery in August.

[tjogin]

An objective review is an oxymoron. All opinions are subjective by their very nature.

[lloeki]

John Siracusa's reviews of Mac OS X are the kind of reviews I would consider the closer to "objective". The amount of technical and factual data he gives leaves much less room to subjectivity than say, this review.

[tjogin]

I love John Siracusa's OS X reviews, but they too are subjective, like all reviews are. Saying a person's opinion is subjective is like saying he or she has a perspective. Everybody has a perspective, you can't escape yours.

A review cannot be more or less subjective, it can only be good or bad, which in turn, is also subjective. So consider that: the next time you call someone's review subjective, you are making a subjective review of that person's subjective review. But that's much better than calling someone's review "objective", because at least you're making sense.

[berntb]

That is like saying: Since we can't cool something to absolute 0 Kelvin, all termometers are valueless.

You have to look at how wrong things are, too..

If I wrote a review of a game in my favorite sport where my home team played, it would not be objective. And another review by me of a sport I don't care about, between teams I don't know, might not be objective either (if women play, one team might be better looking. Or whatever.).

But those reviews would not be EQUALLY subjective...

For another example, consider evolutional biology. Some people have a deep and emotional connection to the scientific model -- while some other people have emotional connections to political ideologies...

Sorry, but you pressed one of my buttons.

[tjogin]

> That is like saying: Since we can't cool something to absolute 0 Kelvin, all termometers are valueless.

No it's nothing like that at all. It's like saying it's better to acknowledge your perspective than to pretend you don't have one.

[ch0wn]

It really depends on what you perceive as objective. I'm not sure I would call it objective, but I would certainly call it a bad review. Every other sentence contains an Apple reference. While this is to be expected when Siegler writes a review, this is a way too narrow view for a good review.

His conclusion is basically, that there is room for an iPad Mini and Jelly Bean is faster and not much about the Nexus7 itself.

[epsylon]

I don't understand why people praise a journalist for doing his job (that is, not being a total Apple fanboy). I guess I have different standards towards (tech) journalism.

[idspispopd]

It's nice to see real discussion about good products, rather than hearing the opinions of thinly veiled loyalists.

As a person who is often mistaken for being an apple fan because I'd rather people discussed each platform factually rather than sharing false information that smells of a loyalists agenda, I'm pleased to see TC putting out a balanced review.